If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

And Dannys 2011-12 season that he seemed to have a problem with was very similar to Pauls numbers last year....go figure...and which team was more talented??? Its like people either never actually watched or have no real clue what theyre watching because they already have their mind made up...from the time Vogel took over things have evolved pretty dramatically...yet some would have u believe everyone evolved EXCEPT Danny...which is completely baseless

Are we really comparing a prime Danny to a 22 year old player in his first year as the go to guy? Danny needed a super human like 6-8 weeks towards the end of the season to get his numbers up to where they were. He was pretty bad for most of that season.

Please tell how Danny evolved his game with Vogel in charge, I'm interested in that.

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

So Danny is a chucker when he shoots 19 shots per game, Paul isn't a chucker when he shoots 19 shots per game, when they have the ball in their hands the same amount of the time. Just making sure we're all on the same page.

Gotta love when people pick and choose their definitions arbitrarily.

Yes. I've explained how I define it. What's the confusion? If it's not how PD defines I'm ok with that.

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

I saw PG as the future and Roy was emerging as an all-star level player, and we had acquired an all-star level player in D. West. I hoped Danny could change his game and become a bit more of a facilitator and that he'd force less shots and I didn't see that happen. That was probably unreasonable expectations on my part though.

But Danny hasn't played in a long time, yet Roy's offense is really no better than it was two years ago when Danny was still playing. I think we just have to face the reality that Roy is probably never going to be any better than a 12-13 PPG player. I wish that he could take it to the next level, but it is what it is. But he's worth every last penny because of his interior defense and rebounding. After the game last year when Roy was suspended against the Clipps and they easily took it inside all night, I told myself that I would never complain about Roy's contract. The good news is that his offense somehow turns into Hakeem when we play Miami (aside from the other night).

11-12 West was coming off of the ACL tear and injury. He only averaged 29 MPG (compared to 33 last year) and while he was a very good player, he wasn't 100%. Last year he was noticeably more spry and agile.

Maybe 11-12 PG could have done a bit more without DG, but he was still just a 21 year old second year player. And he did increase his PPG by 4 and a half points from his rookie season. I do agree with your premise that DG's absence last year forced PG to become the leader on the offensive end overnight.

It's hard for me to complain about 11-12 DG because he was the leading scorer on a team that won 63% of its games. A lot has certainly changed since then, but he was a pretty good player that year.

The Following User Says Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

PG was not ready to take the reins in 11-12. Everyone knew that. He made a huge leap between then and 12-13. Danny was still the best offensive weapon that season. West wasn't 100%. And wasn't that the season Roy was an all star? He was used pretty effectively.

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

I expect a player that has the ball in his hands a lot to do more then score with it. How's that a double standard?

Paul doesn't have the ball in his hands any more than Danny did. That's what usage rate measures. Their usage rate is the same. Their shooting rate is the same. Their turnover rate is the same. So if Danny has the ball in his hands the same amount as PG, shoots the same amount, turns the ball over the same amount, what is Danny doing with the ball during the times he doesn't shoot and doesn't turn it over?

Logic would lead us to one conclusion.....

IF you have another possibility,

Don't need this part to make your point, but it can be seen as rude or disrespectful

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

Are we really comparing a prime Danny to a 22 year old player in his first year as the go to guy? Danny needed a super human like 6-8 weeks towards the end of the season to get his numbers up to where they were. He was pretty bad for most of that season.

Please tell how Danny evolved his game with Vogel in charge, I'm interested in that.

Now I'm really confused...

So an in his prime recent Allstar Danny has very similar shot attempts, usage rates, percentages etc with a less talented team than a young up-n-coming Paul who has much more talent around him and DANNY is the chucker? And oh by the way, Paul was an Allstar and all NBA performer with last seasons numbers....but he wasnt a chucker...Danny was...even though they took the same amount of shots, etc...

Makes zero sense....if one is a chucker then obviously the other would be a chucker...the numbers bare that out....now...i am of the opinion neither were anything close to being a chucker...But to call one a chucker and one not when they have very similar shot attempts, usage rates and conversion rates seems pretty hypocritical....

As for Danny evolving it seems very very clear...What he was asked to do changed....From the very first game Vogel took over his shot attempts dropped significantly...he went from taking 18 or 19 a game for a few years to taking 14 or 15...and he was doing a bit more driving and definitely changed the way he was defending...all these things were pretty obvious....different coach..different philosophy...game changed...Danny did what he was asked to do..always...whether it be from Rick Carlisle...JOB...or Vogel....and quite frankly if we were going to compare, he probably did so with more humility and less diva....but to be fair..he was older, wiser and in some ways more mature than Paul is...thats why Paul gets a pass...

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

So many people forget that in that Heat series, Danny was the only player who was consistently hitting his shots. West and Hibbert both had up and down games during that series. And it was Danny who knocked off Lebron's headband LOL. Tru-Warrior. Granger was still easily our best player that season. Pacers went on a tear the final 20 games of the season. That was team that featured Lou Amundson as the back up Center. So this idea that Granger was never a good player on a good team is just preposterous. He led a pretty good team. They had Miami on the ropes. The only real quality vets on that team were Granger, West, and Barbosa.
..

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

PG was not ready to take the reins in 11-12. Everyone knew that. He made a huge leap between then and 12-13. Danny was still the best offensive weapon that season. West wasn't 100%. And wasn't that the season Roy was an all star? He was used pretty effectively.

I was wrong to expect a change. It still annoyed me to watch him shoot sub 40% for the majority of the season while his assist % dipped to a career low.

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

But Danny hasn't played in a long time, yet Roy's offense is really no better than it was two years ago when Danny was still playing. I think we just have to face the reality that Roy is probably never going to be any better than a 12-13 PPG player. I wish that he could take it to the next level, but it is what it is. But he's worth every last penny because of his interior defense and rebounding. After the game last year when Roy was suspended against the Clipps and they easily took it inside all night, I told myself that I would never complain about Roy's contract. The good news is that his offense somehow turns into Hakeem when we play Miami (aside from the other night).

11-12 West was coming off of the ACL tear and injury. He only averaged 29 MPG (compared to 33 last year) and while he was a very good player, he wasn't 100%. Last year he was noticeably more spry and agile.

Maybe 11-12 PG could have done a bit more without DG, but he was still just a 21 year old second year player. And he did increase his PPG by 4 and a half points from his rookie season. I do agree with your premise that DG's absence last year forced PG to become the leader on the offensive end overnight.

It's hard for me to complain about 11-12 DG because he was the leading scorer on a team that won 63% of its games. A lot has certainly changed since then, but he was a pretty good player that year.

He was a horrible chucker for the majority of the season and a good player for like 2 months, people called it "he always starts slow reason why he is chucking it at a low percentage", I remember that he had the lowest shooting percentage in the NBA for a long time that year.

Lets note that I called him superstar for about a month when he was able to pick it up and was killing teams(but he was a chucker for longer than that).

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

So many people forget that in that Heat series, Danny was the only player who was consistently hitting his shots. West and Hibbert both had up and down games during that series. And it was Danny who knocked off Lebron's headband LOL. Tru-Warrior. Granger was still easily our best player that season. Pacers went on a tear the final 20 games of the season. That was team that featured Lou Amundson as the back up Center. So this idea that Granger was never a good player on a good team is just preposterous. He led a pretty good team. They had Miami on the ropes. The only real quality vets on that team were Granger, West, and Barbosa.
..

Danny averaged 13.3 PPG on 37.6% shooting in that Heat series. He was pretty bad in games 1 and 2 in Miami (West and Hill were top 2 scorers in game 2). He played pretty good in games 3 and 4 back home, but wasn't that good in the final two games of the series (only shot the ball 6 times in game 5). It's certainly fair to wonder whether Danny's health was beginning to bother him in that series, but he was hardly consistently hitting shots against Miami. But Miami was a brutal opponent and everyone was inconsistent to a point.

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

He was a horrible chucker for the majority of the season and a good player for like 2 months, people called it "he always starts slow reason why he is chucking it at a low percentage", I remember that he had the lowest shooting percentage in the NBA for a long time that year.

Lets note that I called him superstar for about a month when he was able to pick it up and was killing teams(but he was a chucker for longer than that).

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

Lets note that I called him superstar for about a month when he was able to pick it up and was killing teams(but he was a chucker for longer than that).

So he was a superstar when he was shooting 46%? That's what he shot the month of April, which was his highest FG% for a month that season. So if 46% is good enough to cross the superstar threshold, what category would a player who shoots a career 44% fall into?

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

He was a horrible chucker for the majority of the season and a good player for like 2 months, people called it "he always starts slow reason why he is chucking it at a low percentage", I remember that he had the lowest shooting percentage in the NBA for a long time that year.

Lets note that I called him superstar for about a month when he was able to pick it up and was killing teams(but he was a chucker for longer than that).

I know, but I'm just saying that I can understand why we continued to have Danny shooting. Roy is what he is (a 12 PPG player), West wasn't 100%, and PG was 21 years old (though he did increase his average by 4 and a half points). Staying with DG paid off when he got hot.

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

Paul doesn't have the ball in his hands any more than Danny did. That's what usage rate measures. Their usage rate is the same. Their shooting rate is the same. Their turnover rate is the same. So if Danny has the ball in his hands the same amount as PG, shoots the same amount, turns the ball over the same amount, what is Danny doing with the ball during the times he doesn't shoot and doesn't turn it over?

Logic would lead us to one conclusion.....

IF you have another possibility, maybe alien abduction, I'd like to hear it.

This argument is silly to me. Paul makes passes that Danny can't even see. High assist guys always turn the ball over a lot because they sometimes make passes that are risky. The fact that their turnover rate is similar but Paul doubles his assist totals is telling. Danny simply doesn't risk passes because he often doesn't see them. I'm not saying he never passes but that lack of vision is a detriment to his teammates at times. There's no double standard.

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

Danny averaged 13.3 PPG on 37.6% shooting in that Heat series. He was pretty bad in games 1 and 2 in Miami (West and Hill were top 2 scorers in game 2). He played pretty good in games 3 and 4 back home, but wasn't that good in the final two games of the series (only shot the ball 6 times in game 5). It's certainly fair to wonder whether Danny's health was beginning to bother him in that series, but he was hardly consistently hitting shots against Miami. But Miami was a brutal opponent and everyone was inconsistent to a point.

He was destroyed by Lebron, here is a good video explaining what happened

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

So he was a superstar when he was shooting 46%? That's what he shot the month of April, which was his highest FG% for a month that season. So if 46% is good enough to cross the superstar threshold, what category would a player who shoots a career 44% fall into?

I'm talking about the level he was playing on that month but sure keep moving the goal post.

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

I was wrong to expect a change. It still annoyed me to watch him shoot sub 40% for the majority of the season while his assist % dipped to a career low.

Shooting percentages were generally lower that year..it was the strike year...no training camp...no preseason...alot of people got off to slow starts...yet Danny averaged more points on basically the same amount of shot attempts if you compare that year to Pauls year last year...so saying hes a chucker...and oh by the way...he turned the ball over less...which probably doesnt come as any huge surprise given how each is used....

And one more oh by the way....the Pacers got off to a pretty awesome start that year...and finished at 42-24 which was good enough for 3rd best in the eastern conference...so it couldnt be all that bad...not for a chucker anyway

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

This argument is silly to me. Paul makes passes that Danny can't even see. High assist guys always turn the ball over a lot because they sometimes make passes that are risky. The fact that their turnover rate is similar but Paul doubles his assist totals is telling. Danny simply doesn't risk passes because he often doesn't see them. I'm not saying he never passes but that lack of vision is a detriment to his teammates at times. There's no double standard.

Most of pauls turnovers generally come from trying to split double teams and the like...even sheer carelessness...not usually passing

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

So an in his prime recent Allstar Danny has very similar shot attempts, usage rates, percentages etc with a less talented team than a young up-n-coming Paul who has much more talent around him and DANNY is the chucker? And oh by the way, Paul was an Allstar and all NBA performer with last seasons numbers....but he wasnt a chucker...Danny was...even though they took the same amount of shots, etc...

Makes zero sense....if one is a chucker then obviously the other would be a chucker...the numbers bare that out....now...i am of the opinion neither were anything close to being a chucker...But to call one a chucker and one not when they have very similar shot attempts, usage rates and conversion rates seems pretty hypocritical....

As for Danny evolving it seems very very clear...What he was asked to do changed....From the very first game Vogel took over his shot attempts dropped significantly...he went from taking 18 or 19 a game for a few years to taking 14 or 15...and he was doing a bit more driving and definitely changed the way he was defending...all these things were pretty obvious....different coach..different philosophy...game changed...Danny did what he was asked to do..always...whether it be from Rick Carlisle...JOB...or Vogel....and quite frankly if we were going to compare, he probably did so with more humility and less diva....but to be fair..he was older, wiser and in some ways more mature than Paul is...thats why Paul gets a pass...

Danny defended better when JOB took over. I can agree with that. Offensively though, I didn't see much of change in 11-12, and that's what I was mainly talking about.

Danny's all-star year he was great all-around except defensively. I wouldn't say he was C word that year.

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

This argument is silly to me. Paul makes passes that Danny can't even see. High assist guys always turn the ball over a lot because they sometimes make passes that are risky. The fact that their turnover rate is similar but Paul doubles his assist totals is telling. Danny simply doesn't risk passes because he often doesn't see them. I'm not saying he never passes but that lack of vision is a detriment to his teammates at times. There's no double standard.

Yeah, it means he's better at passing to teammates in scoring position, not that he passes MORE.

So what was Danny doing with the ball, if he wasn't turning it over nor shooting it?

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

I'm talking about the level he was playing on that month but sure keep moving the goal post.

Moving the goalposts?

I know what you're saying. You said he was playing at a superstar level during the last month, when he "was able to pick it up." He "picked it up" by shooting 46%. If shooting 46% makes him a superstar, what does shooting 44% make him? I'm not moving anything, I'm asking YOU to give YOUR opinion.

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?